Supreme Court Asked To Upend Pollution Rules

By Robert Alexander

Senior Crime & Court Reporter

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

California’s sweeping new climate-disclosure mandates have triggered an escalating legal battle now arriving at the U.S. Supreme Court, with business groups asking to temporarily halt two state laws—Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261—that require large companies operating in California to report their greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-related financial risks.

The emergency appeal argues that forcing companies to issue these disclosures violates the First Amendment, setting up a high-stakes dispute over the boundary between state transparency rules and protections against compelled speech.

Newsweek contacted attorney for the parties for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.

Why It Matters

California’s first-in-the-nation climate disclosure laws have triggered a high-stakes Supreme Court battle that could reshape the reach of state climate policy and the scope of corporate First Amendment rights.

At issue is whether companies can be required to publicly report their emissions and climate-related financial risks, or whether such mandates amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

The outcome could determine how much climate information businesses must reveal to the public, whether states retain authority to demand transparency on environmental and financial risks, and how far corporations can go in using free-speech claims to block regulatory oversight—setting a precedent with sweeping implications for climate accountability nationwide.

...

What To Know

What The California Laws Require

This is a dispute over whether California can require big companies to publicly reveal their pollution and climate risks, or whether that violates the companies’ free-speech rights.

The two laws, both enacted in 2023, are part of what California describes as an expansion of climate accountability.

SB 253 requires entities with more than $1 billion in annual revenue doing business in the state to publicly disclose their Scope 1, Scope 2 and, starting in 2027, Scope 3 greenhouse-gas emissions.

The bill’s legislative digest states it will require companies to “publicly disclose…their scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions… and, starting in 2027…their scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.”

SB 261 imposes similar requirements for climate-related financial risk reporting and mandates that affected companies publish the resulting assessments on their websites beginning in 2026.

According to the bill text, covered entities must provide a “climate-related financial risk report disclosing the entity’s climate-related financial risk and measures adopted to reduce and adapt” to those risks.

Why Business Groups Are Challenging Them

Opponents argue these disclosures are not mere factual reporting requirements but compelled ideological speech.

In an emergency application filed on behalf of multiple business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, petitioners contend that “California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change.”

The filing further characterizes the laws as part of “California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior.”

The Chamber and its partners assert that the mandates go beyond standard corporate reporting practices.

They argue that the laws require businesses to adopt California’s preferred framing of climate responsibility.

The emergency application states that the rules “dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change” and amount to “compelled-speech laws [that] are presumptively unconstitutional.”

Exxon Mobil, which has filed a separate suit, advances a similar argument. In its complaint, the company states that the laws “purport to require Exxon Mobil Corporation…to serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees.”

The filing claims state legislators intend to “embarrass[] large corporations that California believes are uniquely responsible for climate change,” and argues that the mandated disclosures would force Exxon to adopt frameworks that “place disproportionate blame on large companies.”

How California Defends The Laws

California, for its part, has argued in legislative findings that climate change poses broad economic risks and that improved transparency is necessary to help investors assess exposure.

SB 261 states that “climate change is affecting California’s communities and economy with impacts including wildfires, sea level rise, extreme weather events, [and] extreme droughts.”

Similarly, SB 253 frames the measures as part of the state’s effort to lead in climate policy, asserting that “California has demonstrated its leadership in the battle against climate change.”

The Supreme Court is being asked to intervene before the laws take effect.

The Ninth Circuit recently stayed enforcement of SB 261 pending appeal, prompting the Chamber to withdraw an earlier emergency request.

In a letter to the Court, counsel for the Chamber wrote that the organization was “withdraw[ing] their Emergency Application…without prejudice to renewing their request for relief” depending on further developments.

The pending petition involving SB 253 now places a broader question before the justices: whether expansive climate-related disclosure requirements amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

A ruling to limit such mandates could restrict similar regulatory efforts nationwide, while a decision upholding California’s approach could reinforce states’ authority to require environmental transparency from the companies that operate within their borders.

What People Are Saying

State Senator Scott Wiener, discussing SB 253: “When corporations are transparent about the full scope of their emissions, they have the tools and incentives to tackle them.”

Exxon Mobil Complaint, describing SB 253 and SB 261’s legislative purpose: “The statutes…purport to hold large companies ‘accountable’ for climate change by forcing them to produce reports designed to elicit public disapproval.”

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court must now decide whether to temporarily block California’s new climate-disclosure law, even as the Ninth Circuit prepares to hear full arguments on the broader First Amendment challenge in early 2026.

If the justices grant a stay, the law is paused nationwide; if they deny it, companies must begin preparing disclosures while litigation continues.

Whatever the immediate outcome, the case is expected to return to the Supreme Court because it raises major questions about compelled speech and state authority over climate policy, and its resolution will influence whether similar transparency rules spread—or stall—across the country.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines